It’s communicating to me that the artist and the people who call this “art” are con artists.
Neither did he. You even bolded the part where he didn’t do that.
Touche`. I should have included:
Really? How so, exactly? What is the artist claiming about his work that you think is manifestly untrue? Because as near as I can tell, he’s saying, “Look! It’s a dog turd the size of a house!” Which appears to be entirely accurate, as near as I can tell.
On edit… perhaps you’re upset that it is not, in fact, an actual house-sized dog turd, but only a cunning simulacrum? Otherwise, I’m not really seeing the dishonesty here.
Sure, it’s art. It’s just really, really stupid art.
The website doesn’t show the Barbie Insertion Scene. 
“Golden” is something completely different. Obviously you don’t understand art.
Well…that is a “type” of mustard…
Myself, I would have used grey poupon 
Blll
Given the topic in question, I think you meant grey poopon, and it’s brown.
If everything is art, then the term means nothing. If there are some things that are not art, then we are admitiing that the term does have some objective meaning.
The irony is that many “artists” scoff at the kinds of things that you can buy at K-Mart, while still maintaining that anything can be art no matter how manifestly unpleasing it may be.
Nobody is suggesting that anything is art. That’s crappy stuff at K-Mart may have been art when somebody thought of it and made it well the first time, but by the time K-Mart is selling it it isn’t original, there are thousands of copies and it’s a piece of junk that falls apart. K-Mart never sells new ideas, they sell old ideas that they know for sure your average yokel will buy. There is nothing wrong with it, but there is very little art involved.
But must art be the same for everyone?
The art snobs argue that only certain things should be called art. Only things that are deep or complicated or meaningful or some other snooty criteria.
If I can look at a piece and experience a meaningful interaction with it … then it’s art to me. Who cares what the snobs think?
Personally I like living in a world where someone has the whimsy to create a giant inflatable dog turd!
Yeah, whatever. The word “art” means whatever people generally use it to mean, and it’s in no danger of losing all meaning just because many things are labelled art. After all, no one says “I’m late for work; I hope I catch the 8:30 art”, “I’m starving. What’s for art?”, “So then my art drove my sister over, completely unannounced”, etc. Clearly, there is have some non-trivial criterion for what is and is not called art. The word is so far from voiding of meaning that the argument is ridiculous.
[And why does everyone get so hung up on it anyway? It need hardly be the case that the word denotes meritful work; as far as I can tell, from observing its usage, the word simply denotes certain kinds of works, so that one is perfectly free to call K-Mart tchotchkes "[shoddy, worthless] art"and the same of giant inflatable dog turds, if one feels that way about either. It’s like saying “That’s not a painting; it’s just some crappy picture drawn with paint but of no lasting value.”]
{And if the word is, for whatever reason, to be taken as carrying the import of merit, then there seems to me little reason to deny that it has a subjective component; why would such judgements be objective? But, anyway, I think this is a side issue not particularly relevant to sussing out the word’s definition…}
Huh…I have a friend who, while in culinary school, assisted with making thousands of small, chocolate, Santas With Buttplugs…This was just last year. Was it this same artist?
I think what gets my goat most about a lot of this “art,” is that it takes no talent. At all. How much fucking talent do you need to run around a room in ketchup and shove a Barbie doll up your ass? Or to pay some company to make a giant inflatable turd? I could do the exact same thing as this guy, and for some odd reason, I seriously doubt anyone would pay me money to show it off. But because he’s an “artist,” it’s meaningful and he’ll get paid…since I’m a nobody, I’d get called moronic and childish. And possibly hauled off to the looney bin…I mean, covered in ketchup with a doll up my ass? That’s not a point for sanity.
My dad told me a story about a pottery class he took in college. Once everyone had started working on their pottery, the professor wold take her own and break them. When asked about it, her response was, “I can make them properly.”
I think it’s one of those once you know the rules, then you can break them in new and creative ways. Something that is fresh and inventive in the hands of someone knowledgeable can be crude and amateurish in the hands of a novice. But perhaps modern art has run too far with the idea.
The dude wears a beret, and makes giant inflatable turds for art displays. He’s practically begging not to be taken seriously.
What makes you think he wants to be taken seriously?
There are whole factories that make fake shit (and vomit for that matter) - you can go into a novelty store and buy a fake poop off the shelf.
Indeed, I remember doing so back when I was 8; I though it was screamingly funny - you could leave a shit in some incongruous place (say, the teacher’s chair). But I was under no delusions, even then, that it was somehow original.
This is what strikes me about this fellow’s “art”: it is really no different from the class clown who would shove crayons up his nose and make farting sounds to get attention - only, writ large and gotten old. Instead of leaving a fake shit on the teacher’s chair, leave one moored outside a museum.
The difference is that, rather than outraging the powers that be (and amusing the kiddies), the turd is applauded and paid for by the powers that be, and mostly bores the kiddies and the proles. After all, the whole point of leaving a fake shit on the teacher’s chair is to be outrageous. The teacher giving you a grant to do it (or giving you an “A” in art) removes the point.
There is nothing subversive or even childishly rebellious about it; it is neither original nor outrageous nor particularly funny - it is just sad. The tired re-hashing of ideas long gone stale - stale decades ago.
Maybe the artist has more taste than we give him credit for.
Maybe he just contracted out to the same company “Spinal Tap” with the same predictable results
Blll
Why do you assume that people have no common sense?
I reassure you; there is absolutely no need to argue that this is not art.
There is no danger that anyone will be unable to distinguish this from the works of Degas.
Art like this can have value, but we have the sense not to confuse it for a Van Gogh.
In short, your fear is unfounded. There are many different types of art, but we are more than capable of appreciating all of them without confusing them with each other.